Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 544 (JK)

Gagan Bhagat v. State of J&K

2021-10-12

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the FIR bearing No. 0066 of 2019 dated 27.04.2019 registered with Police Station, R.S. Pura, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 354-B and 34 RPC against the petitioner. 2. It is stated that prior to the lodging of impugned FIR, the petitioner had already lodged the FIR on 27.04.2019 bearing No. 0065 registered with Police Station, R.S. Pura, Jammu for commission of offences under sections 341, 323 and 34 RPC against the respondent No. 4, wherein, it was stated that the accused person had attacked the petitioner and his associates with sharp edged weapons. 3. The petitioner has impugned the FIR on the ground inter-alia that the said FIR was registered as a counter blast to the FIR already lodged by the petitioner and further that the respondent No. 3 did not conduct any investigation in FIR lodged by the petitioner but conducted the investigation swiftly in the FIR lodged against the petitioner. It is further stated that the impugned FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive as the respondent No. 4 knew that the petitioner would get the mandate from his party to contest the assembly elections. 4. Response stands filed by the official respondents in which it is stated that on 27.04.2019, the complainant namely Seema Devi D/o Sh. Bansi Lal had filed a complaint against the petitioner herein, complaining therein that the petitioner along with his associates came into her house and over an issue of electricity transformer, they started abusing the complainant and her associates, who were present there. It is further stated that the petitioner and his associates assaulted the complainant and her relative namely Darshan Lal and other persons. Pursuant to this, FIR bearing No. 0066/2019 for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 34 RPC was registered against the petitioner. It is further stated that the injury report form was also filled for the medical examination from CHC, R.S. Pura. During the course of investigation, after recording the statement of the complainant and Darshan Lal, offence under section 354-B was also made out. It is further stated that on the disclosure of Rahul Kalsotra who was one of the accused, one baseball bat was recovered from the field and that was seized. During the course of investigation, after recording the statement of the complainant and Darshan Lal, offence under section 354-B was also made out. It is further stated that on the disclosure of Rahul Kalsotra who was one of the accused, one baseball bat was recovered from the field and that was seized. CDs' showing the acts of the petitioner and Rahul Kalsotra were also seized. The medical report of the victim/complainant was also obtained from the SDH, R.S. Pura and after conclusion of the investigation, offences under sections 354-B, 341, 323 and 34 RPC were proved against the petitioner, Rahul Kalsotra and Jarnail Singh. The challan of the case was produced before the court of learned JMIC, R.S. Pura on 05.11.2019. 5. Mr. Rohit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that impugned FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive just to harass the petitioner and to wriggle out the FIR that was already lodged by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Jamrodh Singh, GA appearing vice Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG vehemently argued that lodging of cross FIR is permissible and more so, involvement of the petitioner and his associates stands established during the course of investigation leading to the filing of the Charge-Sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. It is borne from the record that the petitioner had earlier lodged FIR bearing No. 0065/2019 on 27.04.2019 at 16:05 hrs whereas, impugned FIR was registered on same date at 18:45 hrs. Merely lodging of FIR by the petitioner prior to the lodging of the FIR against him would not render the subsequent FIR illegal as there can be different versions of same occurrence by the two parties. 9. Law is well settled that the second FIR is not permissible, however, the lodging of counter FIR having the cross version of the accused in earlier FIR is permissible. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Amit Bhai Shah Anil Chandra vs. C.B.I. and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 348 . In view of this, when there are allegations and counter allegations with regard to the same occurrence by both the parties, lodging of cross FIR would not mean that the second FIR that has been lodged with regard to the same occurrence, is illegal. 10. In view of this, when there are allegations and counter allegations with regard to the same occurrence by both the parties, lodging of cross FIR would not mean that the second FIR that has been lodged with regard to the same occurrence, is illegal. 10. The contention raised by the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive against the petitioner or not cannot be considered in the present facts and circumstances of the case particularly, when the injury report has been obtained by the Investigating Officer. As, the challan has been filed against the petitioner and other accused person, the petitioner can raise the said plea before the learned trial court. 11. Viewed thus, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, as such, the same is dismissed.